Category Archives: Legal

In a landmark court ruling in New Zealand that will send tremors around the world, the once respected Greenpeace is stripped of its charity status.

High Court Judge, Justice Paul Heath made the groundbreaking decision today after overwhelming evidence was presented that proved that the organization’s illegal activities were motivated by zealous political advocacy and crossed the line of what charities are permitted to do.

In a story making headlines in the New Zealand Herald (May 10, 2011) climate skeptics around the world will now be consulting lawyers in their respective countries to assess whether similar legal challenges may be made against the disgraced former charity. Dr. Tim Ball, who is currently facing court proceedings from Greenpeace supporters in Canada, urged skeptics to “pursue this globally.”

Climate Courtroom Worm Has Turned

In the U.S and Britain environmentalist activists have for decades sought to influence policymakers by a swath of unlawful protests often involving criminal damage and trespass. Several prominent UN climatologists have long aligned themselves with and been apologists for the radical and unlawful acts of these environmentalists.

As a consequence of the shock New Zealand ruling Greenpeace’s political activities mean it will be de-registered as a charity and thus lose the prestige and tax advantages associated with that status.

NASA’s problematic climatologist, James Hansen, flew to London to be an ‘expert witness’ to testify in the defense of climate activists prosecuted for such crimes.

Justice Paul Heath’s decision was as the result of an appeal launched by Greenpeace after a 2010 ruling by the Charities Commission which found its promotion of “disarmament and peace” was political rather than educational. Greenpeace members were ruled to have acted illegally.

Justice Paul Heath pronounced:

“Non-violent, but potentially illegal activities (such as trespass), designed to put (in the eyes of Greenpeace) objectionable activities into the public spotlight were an independent object disqualifying it from registration as a charitable entity.”

Davey Salmon Greenpeace’s lawyer in the action was crestfallen at the failure of his argument that such political advocacy was acceptable in 21st century. Read more here.

Advertisements

Rate this:

Comments Off on Political Greenpeace Loses Charity Status in Landmark Court Ruling

May 2011 sees the Big Green litigation machine go into overdrive as it ignores Gallup Poll ratings showing Joe Public no longer believes it’s global warming propaganda. In a story that is going viral on the web, Matthew Brown (Associated Press) explains that, “The courtroom ploy was backed by activists looking for a legal soft spot to advance a cause that has stumbled in the face of stiff congressional opposition.”

In the United States environmentalists plummet new depths as gullible children are groomed to appear in courts to explore any legal loophole to squeeze through impose swinging climate regulations damaging to economic recovery. Meanwhile in Canada skeptic climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball rides a tide of popular support to fight back against well-funded climate doomsayer libel suits.

Greens Groom Kids with Crank Claims of Carbon Contamination

Matthew Brown’s report highlights how the idealism of children is cynically being exploited with this spate of lawsuits. Alec Loorz of Ventura, California, is one of many children indoctrinated into thinking our planet is doomed.

An Oregon-based nonprofit called Our Children’s Trust has been recruiting kids like Alec Loorz as plaintiffs for their speculative claims which are based on “common law” theories, not statutes adopted by state or federal lawmakers.

Loorz is an impressionable 16-year-old climate activist groomed as a plaintiff in one of the speculative U.S. cases. A worried Loorz said he latched onto the effort because he thought, “it would give us teeth, give us a bigger voice than just yelling and marching.”

Loorz was first groomed as an ‘eco-warrior’ at the tender age of 13 after seeing former Vice President Al Gore’s discredited movie, ‘Inconvenient Truth.’ A British High Court ruling in 2007 was that Gore’s film contained nine lies.The judge ruled that the film can only be shown to children with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination. Sadly, Loorz’s green groomers omitted to pass on that vital piece of information.
Thus the deep-pockets of environmental ‘charities’ believed to be funding young activists, are still remorselessly insisting that human emissions of carbon dioxide that comprises less than 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, is a dangerous ‘poison.’ But to biologists the benign trace gas is merely plant food and has long been pumped into Loorz’s sodas to give that bubbly fizz.

Lawmakers Condemn Green’s Misuse of Precious Court Time

Many legal analysts predict that this latest ruse by climate extremists will clog up the court system in all 50 U.S. states. Such lawsuits are already being frowned upon from an unlikely quarter: the Obama administration.

Already, the U.S. Supreme Court has disapproved of such “nuisance cases.” Environmental lawyer, Steven G. Jones correctly echoed the voice of the judiciary, “[t]he Supreme Court has long recognized that there are cases that raise political questions that should be reserved for the political branches of government.” [1.]

In his excellent legal analysis, ‘Republican Lawmakers Join Obama Administration in Urging Supreme Court to Overrule GHG Nuisance Case,’ Jones highlights the fact that the Obama administration agreed with Republicans that the U.S. Supreme Court was correct to overturn an appellate ruling that would have allowed environmental plaintiffs to sue sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs) under tort law. Thus even this ultra-green President who tried and failed to get Congress to pass climate laws frowns upon this new and ill-thought out legal gambit.
Harvard Law School professor Jody Freeman agrees with Columbia University law professor Michael Gerrard are among a host of experts advising that these frivolous lawsuits won’t save a moribund green cause. Freeman doubts a law court could ever be an appropriate forum for the issue.

“I am generally skeptical the plaintiffs will succeed in the courts pressing for common-law remedies from judges,” Freeman said. Another expert, Hans von Spakovsky, attorney and a former member of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), dismissed the lawsuits for being based on “a creative, made-up legal theory.”

However, to the far northwest in Vancouver, British Columbia, a far more compelling and ultimately decisive global warming legal battle is being fought in Canadian libel courts. Climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball and his legal team are confident they will deal their own fatal blow to two lawsuits filed by UN climate extremists, thus putting an end to any claims that man-made global warming has any scientific substance.

The omens are good, according to ‘Time’ magazine, which notes that Canadian voters, just like their U.S. cousins, have been voting down green policies in recent elections; so it will be hard to find any jury north or south of the 49th parallel eager to resurrect environmentalism’s lost cause.

Finally, someone in the state of California with some common sense! Per Reuters Africa of all places…….

A San Francisco judge has tentatively ruled that California did not adequately consider alternatives to creating a carbon market, a decision which clouds the premier U.S. climate change program’s outlook.

California’s so-called cap-and-trade plan is seen as the vanguard of U.S. climate change policy after the U.S. Congress failed to pass a federal system, and the plan’s fate is being watched globally by environmentalists and industry.

While only a tentative ruling at least this is a start in the right direction to stop this mad plan that will accelerate California’s bankruptcy. You can read more at the source below.

When will someone notice that setting up carbon trading with foreign countries, as California has done on its own is also illegal?

A sincere thanks to Senator Inhofe (R-Okla) for getting after the EPA who have been overstepping their bounds and usurping the authority of Congress. Per the New York Times, who don’t appear too happy……..

The Senate’s most vocal climate change skeptic has taken a key role in crafting two bills to be introduced next week that would both permanently stop U.S. EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who famously called climate change the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” will unveil a bill with House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) that would strip EPA of its authority to limit carbon emissions from power plants, refineries and other stationary sources.

At the same time, he will be a “first co-sponsor” of a much broader bill that would bar the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under any existing environmental law. That measure will be introduced Monday by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who serves on the Environment and Public Works Committee, on which Inhofe is the ranking Republican.

I hope all the Republicans join in and vote for these two much-needed bills. This will be a good step in stopping onerous regulations that scare business away from the United States and costs jobs.

I’ve been ragging and ragging about California’s cap & trade program that is about to be fired up by the greentards in Sacramento who amazingly still believe in anthropogenic global warming despite all the proof to the contrary. One of the key points the Governator has been touting is we’ll be creating all those green jobs for people and we’ll be making clean power with new bird choppers (aka: wind turbines) and solar energy. Well, based on this Arnold, I think you can kiss your green power and green jobs goodbye. I bet no one’s going to be building much of anything for quite awhile.

Why? Well Arnold, don’t look now but that new huge solar project in the California desert has just been put to a screeching halt by the Indians and other so-called ‘activists’ who sued in Federal Court. Whatcha gonna do now Arnold? Call Ghost Busters? Per East County Magazine, here’s the scoop……

Local and statewide activists battling massive energy projects on public lands are praising a decision issued by U.S. District Court Judge Larry Burns yesterday, while the CEO of Tessera Solar says he is “deeply disappointed” in the ruling.

The federal Judge issued a temporary restraining order halting construction on the first massive desert solar project authorized on public lands—a project that if built, would be one of the largest solar power plants in the world.

Here we go folks. The real agenda is the greentards don’t want anything built anywhere regardless if it pollutes or not. Their real goal is to have us riding bicycles and living in caves. I also suspicion money comes into play. So what’s the lame excuse used to halt progress this time?

The Court ruled that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management failed to adequately consult with the tribe regarding protection of 459 cultural resources identified at 300 locations on the site in Imperial County.

Yes, you can’t build anything now unless you ‘consult’ with the local tribe. It appears all that useless land that sits there just suddenly became and amazing treasure trove of cultural things. I wonder how much of those ‘green’ dollars may be exchanged in the process? Remember, no matter what it usually goes back to follow the money if you want to find out what the real deal is.

I wonder who else is involved. The competition perhaps?

“Thank goodness there is still some wisdom and justice in the courts. We can celebrate! This decision could affect some of the other utility scale solar plants planned for the Mojave Desert,” said Terry Weiner with Solar Done Right, an organization that opposes the project and calls instead for local power generation through rooftop solar.

Yes I bet he’s celebrating as I type because he’s helped to halt this, which may afford him or others a golden opportunity to golden fleece the people in the golden state out of some of their gold if this halts large solar projects in California and forces people to go to rooftop solar. I suppose they could all be doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, but the follow the money mantra makes me wonder who has what invested in rooftop solar and who’s may benefit from a banning these large solar facilities in the desert if that sticks?

Per their website this is who they claim to be. You probably should go read up on them and make your own judgement about what their game is……

Solar Done Right is a coalition of public land activists, solar power and electrical engineering experts, biologists and others who view with concern the rush to develop our few remaining wildlands for industrial solar energy.

They’re not happy with only stopping this project either. More groups appear to be making an effort to stop everything solar and wind turbine in the deserts.

The two groups, along with a third, East County Community Action Coalition, have funded litigation and filed lawsuits aiming to stop major energy projects in East County, including Sunrise Powerlink and the Rule Wind Farm. Tisdale revealed in a phone interview today with East County Magazine that the coalition will also be filing suit to halt the Imperial Valley solar project. “We have a broader base of issues than the Quechan,” Tisdale said.

I wonder what that ‘broader base of issues’ is? Money perhaps? Control? Power? I don’t know, but you will love this next quote……

Preston J. Arrow-Weed, a member of the Quechan Native American tribe, called the proposed project “genocide of our tribal ways and culture” in an interview during a protest at the site November 15, as ECM previously reported.

I find it interesting that a solar plant is labeled ‘genocide’ yet all those Indian casinos in California are perfectly fine and evidently do nothing bad for their ‘tribal ways and culture.’ I also find that to be a rather interesting that this attitude appears to be spreading all over the state and no doubt will spread to other areas with good solar and wind potential like Nevada, Arizona, Texas and New Mexico.

Statewide, several major solar projects have run into legal obstacles, Reuters reports. Environmental groups have filed suit to block a Solargen plant in the Panoche Valley. First Solar’s Topaz Plan in San Luis Obispo has drawn opposition from environmental groups over the impact on endangered San Joaquin kit foxes. SunPower’s proposed California Valley Solar Ranch also faces opposition on habitat destruction grounds in San Luis Obispo.

I’d say this effectively may put a halt to the cap & trade authorized by AB32. If there’s no solar being installed and no wind turbines going up there’s not going to be any clean power. The result will be that no one’s going to be capping any coal power plants or trading any carbon credits if there’s nothing to trade. Oh well, back to coal-fired power plants we go. Funny how those greentards appear to be creating more pollution while saving the planet. Frankly, that’s fine with me because California is already well on its way to bankruptcy and cap & trade is going to accelerate the process big time. Perhaps this will force the idiots in Sacramento to re-evaluate what they’re doing to the state in the name of saving us all from non-existent anthropogenic global warming and plant food (CO2).

No matter where you go or what you want to do it seems the greentards will always find some lame excuse to bring progress to a screeching halt. Tribal culture, burial grounds, so-called endangered species, you name one, they’ll use it. They’ve been complaining we need renewable energy for decades, yet when someone finally gets that process going, they appear out of nowhere and start suing over that. See why I use the term greentards? I find their stupidity amazingly fitting sometimes.

I wonder if lawyers all over the United States are salivating over this one? Imagine all the money to be made from all these lawsuits. I also wonder if tribes all over are already picking up on this and planning on how to use this to extract money from the government. Gotta protect those Indian casinos, I mean cultural things now don’t we?

Sorry, but being suspicious by nature, I have to ponder the effects of all of these lawsuits and who might be making money off of them. Time will tell who’s going to reap what.In the meantime, we’ll just have to wait and see what the end results will be.

I’d urge you to read the whole article at the source below and get more details.

Now that the Concun Climate Conference is over we have everyone scurrying about telling us that a big ‘deal’ was made. They got no extension of Kyoto, no new treaty, nothing legally binding. Basically what has come out of Concun is the only kind of real global warming we have, which is hot air from the United Nations abetted by the lamestream media and some so-called scientists. So, what did they con everyone out of? Oh, only a $100 billion transfer of wealth per annum, that’s all. Sounds way better than anything that was ever behind door #1, #2 or #3 on the TV show ‘Let’s Make a Deal.’

It seems to me that every time they worry about climate change it cost us money. Hundred’s of millions of dollars may be transferred to so-called ‘poorer’ countries from the so-called ‘wealthy’ counties under the guise of saving them all from global warming. Never you mind about the 56 million people who die annually from real problems like AIDS, Cancer, smoking, heart disease, starvation and other things! We need hundreds of millions of dollars to prevent non-existent anthropogenic global warming! Never mind about those other people who die, they don’t count!

I bet that dictators around the globe are probably having a big celebration today because they’re on the verge of the biggest screw job since Bernie Madoff. They’ll be getting money for nothing that will have little or no controls over its dispersal. Want to place a bet about how much of this will actually go to climate related things vs. how much will end up in numbered Swiss bank accounts? I bet Las Vegas wouldn’t give you odds on that one.

Below are some comments from a Telegraph article about this so-called ‘deal,’ aka gigantic screwjob. I’ve placed my comments below their comments in bold italic, highlighting how this is a big con job from Concun.

What has been achieved?

Campaigners claim it has placed UN talks back on track after the disaster at Copenhagen. Countries agreed a ‘balanced package’ that will keep temperature rise below 2C (3.6F).

It stops short of a legal treaty, but commits all countries to cutting emissions for the first time under the UN.

So, basically, about 15,000 people, who spewed carbon getting to/from and while there, didn’t get jack shit. Many of them did sign up to ban DHMO though, bless their little pea brains.

How did they do it?

Haunted by the Copenhagen summit, the host country Mexico tried to focus on areas of agreement instead of seeking an ambitious full treaty.

It also insisted on transparency rather than closed-door talks among major powers. This and an unrelenting positive mood made it difficult for trouble makers to complain.

So, we have Mexico, a country now run by drug cartels, trying to tell the whole world how we should do things. Talk about some big cojones, that about takes the cake in my book. Note the ‘agreement instead of ambitious full treaty,’ which means they already knew this was DOA before they got there.

How will countries cut emissions?

More than 80 countries, including the US, EU and China, put forward voluntary emissions cuts in Copenhagen. These have now been made a formal agreement under the UN process.

Yes, a formal agreement that isn’t legally binding, but never mind that, they had to come up with something to justify all those Pina Coladas and parties.

How will emissions be measured?

China has always been uncomfortable about having its emissions measured by the outside world, claiming only rich countries that can afford the technology should be monitored.

However the US has insisted it is only fair that all countries are exposed to the same amount of scrutiny.

In an uneasy compromise the two superpowers have agreed that it is only fair that the world’s biggest emitters agree to international standards to measure their carbon.

So, we’re now up to an agreement that’s not legally binding, where no one’s in agreement about who’s going to measure emissions, or how they’ll be measured. From what I see of China no one will ever measure their CO2 anyway. They’ll keep on pumping out pollution while collecting money and laugh all the way to the bank.

What has the Kyoto Protocol got to do with it?

The Kyoto Protocol commits rich countries to cutting emissions. It was very important to developing countries that targets in the treaty are extended beyond 2012 because it is currently the only legal climate change agreement the world has.

However rich countries are nervous of committing to the treaty as it does not include China or the US.

In the end a compromise was found where the Kyoto Protocol will be continued, but targets for emissions cuts do not need to be decided until all countries makes cuts.

It is hoped that eventually the Kyoto Protocol will be continued as part of a legal treaty that commits all countries to cutting emissions.

The reality is the Kyoto Protocol has absolutely nothing to do with it. Re-read the above if you didn’t get it. We have “In the end a compromise was found where the Kyoto Protocol will be continued, then the next line says “It is hoped that eventually the Kyoto Protocol will be continued.” So which is it? I’d say that since we don’t have a legally binding agreement that the Kyoto Protocol is deader than a doornail and now has nothing to do with anything.

What does it mean for the UK?

Britain has already committed to cutting emissions by 34 per cent by 2020 under domestic law. But the Government has promised to increase this to 42 per cent if there is a global deal, which is now looking increasingly likely.

It means nothing for the UK. They’re already in the process of committing economic suicide and don’t need any help from the UN. Their government already needs to be committed to an insane asylum. I think those student riots are merely the beginning of a pissed-off British population who are figuring out that their government has bankrupted their country, one that was once one of the richest on the planet.

Is there any money on the table?

Countries have agreed to set up a £60 ($100bn) per annum ‘Green Climate Fund’ from 2020 to help poor countries adapt to climate change.

It could also help developing countries, including India and China, develop green energy like wind turbines and solar panels. The UK will be expected to contribute around £1.5bn per annum towards the fund.

Ahh, the heart of the matter – MONEY! Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! Let’s see India and China are “developing” countries? Hmmmmm…according to Wikipedia, based upon GDP, in 2009 China was the 3rd largest economy and India was the 11th. But never you mind that! They ‘desperately’ need some of those hundreds of millions you know. They’re ‘poor’ you know. The 3rd largest economy in the world being considered as a ‘poor,’ ‘developing country,’ should tell you about all you need to know about how insane this agreement is.

How will it stop deforestation?

Deforestation causes a fifth of global emissions so protecting trees is claimed to be key step in mitigating global warming.

A new fund called Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation or REDD will be set up that will pay poor nations not to chop down trees.

The text includes safeguards to make sure the scheme respects the rights of indigenous people and biodiversity.

Language around carbon markets has been left deliberately vague so it is possible in the future for businesses to make money from ‘carbon offsetting’.

Wetlands will also be protected by allowing countries to offset carbon by protecting peatland such as the Yorkshire Moors.

Evidently they don’t care about global emissions causes 1-2-3-4, just #5. Oh, and you can bet that new fund will also come with a herd of new bureaucrats who will be overpaid by the UN. Those ‘safeguards’ are merely another way for them to come back for more money later because they won’t have enough, they never do. Also, note that ‘vague’ language remark that leaves the door wide open for businesses to screw more money out of this ‘deal.’ Peatland? WTF’s up with that? A way of throwing a bone to the morons who run the UK?

Why is Bolivia so angry?

The Plurinational State of Boliva believes that any UN agreement should ‘protect the rights of Mother Earth’.

The South American country believes that the targets are not strong enough to stop catastrophic climate change and signing up to a deal would be ‘tantamount’ to genocide. They are threatening to keep fighting within the UN process for a stronger deal.

You can bet the real problem is that it’s ‘tantamount’ to moneycide. They would have been able to screw more money out of this deal if they got what they wanted, they didn’t, so they’re pissed off. No Swiss bank accounts for them!

Anything else controversial?

Saudi Arabia won the right to get climate change subsidies for developing ‘clean’ coal, oil or gas. Carbon capture and storage or CCS takes the carbon emissions from fossil fuels and stores it under ground.

So, one of the oil countries selling billions of oil also needs subsidies? Wow! they must be ‘poor’ like the Chinese are! Well, I guess sooner or later they’ll run out of oil and have tons of leftover holes under their useless sand to sequester CO2 in. They have to keep those fleets of private jets, palaces and Rolls Royce’s going you know, not to mention the price of those gold-plated toilets is rising. May as well let the suckers, I mean infidels, pay for their research and development.

Who are the heroes and villains?

Japan came out as an early villain after refusing to sign up to a second period of the Kyoto Protocol but was persuaded to compromise.

By the end of the conference Bolivia was the trouble maker refusing to sign up the deal because they claimed it was too weak to keep temperature rise below 2C.

Mexico has been the hero throughout, with one delegate describing the President Patricia Espinosa as a ‘goddess’ for guiding the talks so well.

The UK Government has been praised for leading efforts to find a compromise on the Kyoto Protocol.

Naughty naughty Japan, refused to sign something that’s retarded so they’re labeled a ‘villain.’ Bolivia is only a ‘trouble maker’ because they raised a stink because El Leader won’t get as fat of a Swiss bank account. Mexico is a ‘hero?’ The same Mexico who’s overrun with drug cartels? The same Mexico with the corrupt government who wants to tell everyone else how to run their country while their own turns into a steaming pile of shit? The suicidal UK government gets ‘praised’ for being, ummm….suicidal? Something wrong with this picture, it’s warped, very warped. Especially when you look at what they consider ‘poor’ countries to be, which means that the real ‘poor’ countries will get little or nothing out of this ‘deal.’

Will this save the planet?

Not yet. The latest scientific analysis suggests that the pledges currently on the table will only get the world 60 per cent of the way towards the emissions cuts that are hoped will keep global temperatures rising by more than 2C this century. However the deal agrees that ambitious must be increased.

All this and it won’t save the planet? There’s nothing to ‘save’ it from and you can damn well bet that they will alway need more money to ‘save the planet’ because this is about greed, power, control and the redistribution of wealth, nothing more, nothing less. Climate change is merely the excuse du jour.

Is this really a success?

Yes, after Copenhagen there were fears that the UN process would collapse. It is embarrassing for the UN not to have a full consensus but the agreement of every country except Bolivia still makes it a very strong agreement. Even though the deal is not legally binding it puts in place decisions that will help the world draw up a new treaty in the future.

Success? Let’s see, no new legally binding treaty, no extension of the Kyoto Protocol, but it’s a success? That’s a pretty piss-poor idea of ‘success’ if you ask me. I guess it’s a ‘success’ because they think they’ll be getting $100 billion dollars to pretty much do with as they please with little or no control over who gets what. Talk about’pork!’ Not to mention I bet the mafia is salivating already as they have already had the ‘success’ of ripping off the EU carbon trading scheme for a mere 7 billion Euros.

What happens next?

The world now has a year to resolve any outstanding issues over the final form of a legal treaty that commits the world to binding targets. There are high hopes this could happen in a UN meeting in Durban, South Africa next year.

However, a deal will need America to up its target which is unlikely while there is a Republican Senate.

So there you have it. No legal treaty, no Kyoto Protocol, no nothing. They’ll have to wait until Durban to try to get this ripoff extended so they can complete the con game. They do have it right that with a Republican Senate this is already a dead horse and will justifiably remain that way. Hopefully by then more people will awaken to the scam and put it to a halt before further financial damage is done.

You can bet that if this scheme doesn’t pan out that the UN will find another ’emergency’ to be used to extract billions of dollars. I bet they’re already scheming as I type.

The controversy over ‘Satellitegate’ hots up as NOAA faces a court appearance for refusing to release evidence that would show whether one or more US satellites exagerrated global warming temperatures.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a federal agency focused on reporting the condition of the oceans and the atmosphere. When the story first broke NOAA bizarrely announced it would withdraw satellite ‘images’ from its archives but failed to state whether reams of cooked data had also been withdrawn.

An official US Government statement last July confirmed that the NOAA-16 earth orbiting satellite used to measure surface temperatures suffered failure due to a “degraded” sensor system. But skeptics now fear that because government climate scientists won’t answer any more questions or reveal the discredited data archives they may be guilty of fraudulently cooking the books to show super boiling temperatures.

The story broke after an anonymous member of the public contacted a skeptic blog when he stumbled across thousands of alarming readings on a government website. The website showed thousands of surface temperatures of over 400 degrees fahrenheit. Dubbed Satellitegate the shocking revelations proved that all such bogus data had been fed automatically into data banks that the US Government then sold all over the world.

As proprietary temperature data products the junk numbers were used by domestic and international weather and climate researchers. Fears are growing that the junk data may have contaminated scores of climate models worldwide and artificially increased average global warming records by several degrees.

In the three months since the story hit the news NOAA still hasn’t come clean as to the true extent of the data contamination. Now it may be necessary for lawyers to file an official Freedom of Information request (FOIA) to compel the government, under federal legislation, to stop the cover up and reveal the truth.

US Government Has History of Breaking Law over Satellite Failures

This won’t the first time NOAA has cynically broken the law to hide embarrasing satellite problems. In 2008 desmogblog.com became embroiled in a similar FOIA confrontation- see ‘NOAA Stonewalls on DCSOVR Documents.’ It is believed that the DCSOVR satellite costing over $100 million may be cannabalised to destroy incriminating evidence that NOAA and NASA were conspiring to prevent the launch of that satellite because it would prove the numbers from other such sources were fake.

As desmogblog.com reports, “DSCOVR is designed to view the planet from the unique vantage point of one million miles distant, and according to leading researchers would immediately settle any remaining debate on the origins or seriousness of global warming.”

Degraded Climate Data Knowingly Sold for Over Five Years

Among the questions NOAA still hasn’t answered are: (1.) how long did NOAA knowingly sell to its network of international customers (mostly government weather and climate researchers) ‘degraded’ data and, (2.) why was no action taken until the story caused a public outcry five years after prominent climate researchers first made the faults known?

Sadly, some commentators on this issue omit to consider that it is common practice in corruption cases for conspirators to shroud their malevolence in the cloak of incompetence. To be fair to the commentator in question he has since publicly conceded, “But, I don’t know the full story.”

How the Law Addresses Corruption

Too often, those with little or no legal experience fail to address whether the alleged perpetrators have the means, motive and opportunity to engage in such conspiratorial acts. Willful ignorance of the facts and/or the law are recurrent themes in government corruption cases on which I’ve worked in both the UK and New York.

Courts must look for the mens rea (guilty mind) component of the wrongful act in conjunction with the actus reus (the rotten deed itself) otherwise, quite rightly, they will never convict.

Lawyers defending the indefensible will often resort to that hoary old chestnut of applying the “merely negligent” gambit to get government workers off serious charges. I have heard endlessly over the years from defense attorneys that we should “never presume malice where simple incompetence will do.” To the raw, untrained eye it often works.

Indeed, there is no prerequisite to doubt such an affirmative defense when there is the absence of any pattern of “error” because it is that pattern of repeated errors that leads to the guilty. What becomes apparent in good fraud cases is that the evidence always displays a pattern- a predictable sequence- of “errors” that go way beyond mere chance.

The Question that NOAA Still Won’t Answer

What makes the Satellitegate controversy so intriguing are three simple questions:

Why do the thousands of high temperature “errors” favor the alarmist (thus government) case?

2. Why were such “errors” only acknowledged by the US government when the story became big news?

Invariably, apologists for science fraud often refer to systemic “errors” as nothing more serious than simple laboratory “selection bias” – and it sure is! Those involved only see what suits them. However, as we have seen in correspondingly substantial frauds (e.g. multi-billion dollar Madoff scandal and sub-prime mortgages) such “error” bias profits the individual or the organisation that crunched the numbers.

When that link between conscious act and subsequent gain becomes clear then it constitutes criminal fraud. Often when such cases are proved you’ll hear those same sanctimonious words uttered by apologists, “lessons will be learned” and they sure are – particularly lessons as to how best to mitigate being caught in the future!

How Self-preservation instinct leads to Conspiracy to Commit Fraud

As I have seen in courtrooms, many middle ranking officers, those loyal lieutenants, often rally behind the misdeeds of their superiors because they are clearly motivated by misplaced self-preservation in a process of ‘CYA.’ You “cover your ass” and concomitantly, by such a survival strategy you also cover the behinds of colleagues by wagon circling as a group. You know full well that your undoubted strength in numbers increases your own personal chances of avoiding censure/prosecution.

So how do anti-corruption specialists prove malfeasance/fraud under the civil burden of “the preponderance of the evidence?” Well, ultimately we need to demonstrate a good probability that X , Y or Z are unlikely to be merely incompetent time after time when their repeated errors favor only one outcome as opposed to a random one. When it becomes statistically improbable that such “errors” could be down to chance alone, that’s when a jury convicts.

What those without legal training also often fail to grasp are two key concepts that courts must address that may be fatal for those implicated parties:

Omission-conscious failure to positively remedy a known error is malfeasance and may thus constitute conspiracy to commit fraud;

Loss or destruction of evidence by any party subject to an FOIA constitutes evidence abuse which is dealt with by the spoliation doctrine (i.e. the offending party is sanctioned under law because the law states that a party shall be punished when it ought to anticipate legal proceedings-thus securing conviction by default judgment).[1.]

The worst evidence of hyper-inflated global warming data that I found was on a web page entitled, ‘Michigan State University Remote Sensing & GIS Research and Outreach Services.’ When I contacted NOAA for further information I was denied by their lawyers. Is this necessary if we are talking about a non-problem over trivial errors of data no one uses? Does that smell of negligence or more of fraud? Taxpayers have a right to know what evidence has now become conveniently “lost” or destroyed.

NOAA and MSU have effectively blocked further access to all associated data preventing my associates and me from analyzing it to identify if there is any case to answer. We merely want NOAA to address the following:

Since removing ‘images’ from their archives has NOAA or its Sea Watch partners taken steps to also remove infected ‘data’ from their archives?
When did NOAA/Sea Watch Partners first know of this problem?
Has NOAA and/or Sea Watch partners ascertained the scope and extent of this data error and what action (i) has been (ii) will be taken to avoid any further recurrence?
Has NOAA/Sea Watch partners identified whether satellite data temperature anomalies impact other data sets and findings including global climate models?
Why has NOAA sinisterly removed all entries for the NOAA-16 subsystem log about the satellite’s health and performance from 2005 onwards when such entries were cleared displayed online up to the date of my first ‘Satellitegate’ article?
Were there errors also made in the NOAA-16 subsystem log that is a totally unconnected process to that of the degraded sensor.
Will NOAA preserve/provide my investigators and me with the details of all the aforementioned data no longer displayed online, plus all associated data that may be relevant to investigations into the ‘Satellitegate’ controversy?
Does NOAA continue to feed automated ‘degraded’ satellite data into its proprietary products that are bought by weather and climate researchers around the world?
Why has NOAA not given any official notifications to (i) it’s paying customers and (ii) the public via its website/publications of the NOAA-16 faults despite Drs. Roy Spencer and John Curry making it known since 2005 that data was no longer reliable?

What Are the Public Left to Think Now?

As any competent government corruption attorney will tell you, repeated errors constitute malfeasance when a continuous and unrelenting omission to address a known sequence of data ‘degradations’ can be judged to be nothing short of a conscious and willful act.

Moreover, when there is also the intentional failure to divulge the evidence that would prove conscious intent not to correct a fault in your favor then that is also proof of fraud. Thus, a group of those who knew of the errors and collectively and consciously failed to act are as guilty of conspiracy to defraud as those who perpretrated the original wrong. Bankers have been jailed for less, why aren’t climate scientists?